Recent Posts

About

The long-term Social Security crisis may be taking a backseat to more immediate concerns like jobs, the economy and health care reform in the buildup to the 2012 presidential election. But it's still a pressing problem the occupant of the White House in 2013 should really begin to deal with.

As it stands, the debate surrounding how to keep Social Security afloat takes two sides: On one side you have those who want to raise taxes, and on the other you have those who want to cut benefits (either by reducing individuals' payouts or by postponing the retirement age).

Neither is an attractive option.

But there is one little-mentioned solution that could fix Social Security without ruffling anyone's feathers. And it's one the next president should seriously consider.

Make more little taxpayers.

Fostering the Taxpayers of Tomorrow

Economist Bryan Caplan expounds on this idea in his book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. "Big families have subsidized retirement since the dawn of government retirement programs," he notes.

The problem today that is even as we're living longer, creating an ever growing pool of retirees, large families are dwindling. In 1940, 42 workers' payroll taxes supported each retiree. Today, it's only 3.3. By 2050, the ratio will be just 2 workers to 1 retiree.

This number will likely continue to get even smaller. After all, the average number of children per family in America (among families with children) is 1.86.

But if we can change this trend with a higher birth rate, Social Security can be fixed with minimal adjustments to tax rates and benefits.

Making a Tough Sell More Palatable

Obviously, the most difficult part of this equation is convincing Americans as a group to have more babies. With the economy still recovering, unemployment numbers still high, and the likeliness of the inflation rate rising in the coming years, it's a valid concern. Kids cost a bundle, and people may have fewer if they fear being able to support them.

But Caplan explained to me that couples would be influenced (especially today) with a one-time tax credit for each child they give birth to. He tossed out the figure of $30,000 per child as an amount that could make couples seriously reconsider becoming parents or having additional children.

And as outlandishly high as that number seems, it actually makes sense for the government to take the short-term hit in tax revenue for the long-term benefit to the economy.

That's because of what's called the "fiscal externality" of each new U.S. citizen.

This represents "the present discounted value of the marginal cost of all the government services the baby will ever consume, minus the present discounted value of all the taxes a baby will ever pay," according to a 2011 essay Caplan wrote for The Cato Institute.

In simpler terms, the fiscal externality is the value of the money the government will collect from a citizen over his lifetime, minus the amount the government will spend on that citizen.

In 2009, economists calculated that the fiscal externality of a new baby was $83,000 -- clearly showing that, even with a tax credit of $30,000 per child, using tax breaks to encourage people to have more kids is an economically responsible tactic.

Similar incentives have worked in other countries that have tried to boost their fertility rate. So it's safe to assume it would work in America as well.

And, perhaps most important, it's a bipartisan solution, both lowering taxes and strengthening the government's fiscal health, according to Caplan -- meaning that having more babies may represent the easiest solution to prevent Social Security's impending demise.

This article was written by Motley Fool analyst Adam J. Wiederman. Click here to read Adam's report detailing one tactic to boost your Social Security payment by as much as 76%.

Introduction to Preferred Shares

TurboTax Articles

Ordinarily, when you sell something for more than what you paid to get it, you have a capital gain; when you sell it for less than what you paid, you have a capital loss. Both can affect your taxes. But if you immediately buy a similar property to replace the one you sold, the tax code calls that a "like-kind exchange," and it lets you delay some or all of the tax effects. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses Form 8824 for like-kind exchanges.

Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts allow the families of disabled young people to set aside money for their care in a way that earns special tax benefits. ABLE accounts work much like the so-called 529 accounts that families can use to save money for education; in fact, an ABLE account is really a special kind of 529.

One of the many benefits of working at home is that you can deduct legitimate expenses from your taxes. The downside is that since home office tax deductions are so easily abused, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tends to scrutinize them more closely than other parts of your tax return. However, if you are able to substantiate your home office deductions, you shouldn't be afraid to claim them. IRS Form 8829 helps you determine what you can and cannot claim.

Form 8859 is a tax form that will never be used by the majority of taxpayers. However, if you live in the District of Columbia (D.C.), it could be the key to saving thousands of dollars on your taxes. While many first-time home purchasers in D.C. are entitled to a federal tax credit, Form 8859 calculates the amount of carry-forward credit you can use in future years, not the amount of your initial tax credit.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has the power to seize income tax refunds when a taxpayer owes certain debts, such as unpaid taxes or overdue child support. Sometimes, a married couple's joint tax refund will be seized because of a debt for which only one spouse is responsible. When that happens, the other spouse is said to be "injured" and can file Form 8379 to get at least some of the refund.

Add a Comment

154 Comments

Filter by:

RedScourge

Currently, each member of the workforce has had $133,000 in local, state, and federal debts saddled onto their backs. Now you want to add another $30,000 ontop of that. Brilliant! Let's make you treasury secretary!

How friggin irresponsible is this suggestion? The current system exists by throwing debt onto the unborn, and our current problem is we are running out of enough money to be able to support ourselves, and your solution is to have more babies that we can't afford to have, and bring them into a world in which they're indebted upon their birth? No friggin way!

Don't worry about social Security just fix this countries ability to manufacture our own goods. Make it competitive even if you have to subsidize it. Putting people back to work would solve some of the problems. Place a tariff on goods coming into the country especially from those U.S Corporation that have left this country for lower paid labor in other countries.You can't do that? Why not? They are no longer a U.S Corporation but a international rag tag company. They owe American labor and this country for their success and now it is payback time. Or would they rather we stop buying their goods?

Don't worry about social Security just fix this countries ability to manufacture our own goods. Make it competitive even if you have to subsidize it. Putting people back to work would solve some of the problems. Place a tariff on goods coming into the country especially from those U.S Corporation that have left this country for lower paid labor in other countries.You can't do that? Why not? They are no longer a U.S Corporation but a international rag tag company. They owe American labor and this country for their success and now it is payback time. Or would they rather we stop buying their goods?

Just figure out how to make all those robots who are replacing workers pay social security taxes. These robots won't retire, and so they'd leave a surplus of money for the human beings. If you just want more people in the United States, all you'd need to do is empty half of India and China into our country. China alone has 100 million unemployed young people who wouldn't mind working here. Perhaps taxing our robots is the better idea.